Misc (mostly mobile comm, IM, TM, etc)
CSCWDesigning groupware applications: A work centered approach, Kate Ehrlich
groupware == groupwork
communication, meetings, info. sharing, coordinating work processes
how work processes differ from from work practices
methodologies for finding this out:
identify new product opps, eval. of existing technologies, input to design specifications
work communication is:
Deployment and adoption:
TeamRoom case study lessons learned:
Computer-supported cooperative work: History and focus, Jonathan Grudin
Article presents history of cscw and examines regional differences. Traces to about 1984. Groupware more identified with commercial products, cscw more research into experimental systems. Highlights interdisciplinary issues and problems of communication. Since CSCW addresses work in real environments (and not necessarily computer work) this is a fundamental issue.
Europe (non US, really) much more academic, government sponsored work. In US, companies fund lots of academic work (more than goverment?). This heavily influences types of applications developed. European work driven more by welfare state (workers replaced by automation must be supported in another way anyway).
How to separate "groupware" from "CSCW"?: "...blanket categorization of an application is less helpful than considering how it is used in a particular setting." Ex.: Email used for broadcast vs. email used for communication.
Grudin expands the usual typology (Co-located and Remote People and Synchronous and Asynchronous for communication) into TIME(x-axis) (same, different but predictable, different and unpredictable) and PLAXE(y-axis) (same, different but predictable, different and unpredictable).
Groupware and cooperative work: Problems and prospects, Jonathan Grudin
This article is very similar to Grudin's 8 Challenges paper, but in a less refined form. He does analyze email according to his criteria and explain why it succeeded. The article is outdated in that some organization were still unsure about email and how it would affect corporate work and policies.
Also makes an insightful parallel to the "hacker ethic" of everything should be freely available and notes how that took a hike as computers became more and more commercial.
Groupware and Social Dynamics: Eight Challenges for Developers, John Grudin
This article was written in the mid-90s detailing the problems which groupware faces which are not faced by single-user applications or organizational IS. He defines the eight challenges as:
The real, take-away point from this reading is that groupware apps require different techniques at virtually every stage of development - from conception to evaluation and must be recognized as very different from single-user apps or large, corporate infrastructure apps.
The intellectual challenge of CSCW: Bridging the gap between social requirements and technical feasibility, Mark Ackerman
This paper defines the "social-technical gap" which is the gap between what is required socially and what we can do technically. This paper makes the case that this gap is large and very significant. Proposes to turn CSCW into a Simone science (why???).
Systematic Explorations - first-order approximations (systems which are successful but with known trade offs) a)do not satisfy all social requirements (Email and chat which leave out face-to-face context, e.g.) b) provide CMC components within app and allow people to make adjustments c) new computational mechanism to substitute for social mechanisms (blurred video indicates presence but not of whom) and d) creation of technical architectures that do not invoke social-technical gap.
Biggest focus is determining systematic methods for designing around gap. Don't explore blindly. Guiding questions:
Computers, Networks and Work, Lee Sproull and Sara Kiesler
Early paper written when networks were just beginning to proliferate. Highlights the differences between face-to-face communication and remote communication and speculates how this will change organizations and work.
ARPANET originally developed to allow researchers access to better, faster machines. However, everyone started using it for communication. They present several studies done by them and others that present early findings about e-communication.
For ex: network comm. (NC) is more egalitarian with everyone having a say. However, it takes longer, and in some cases, a decision is never reached. Also, high-status people tend to fade into the background (good and bad, bad if high-powered ppl know what they're doing, good if not).
NC also seems to bring out honesty. People more willing to identify negative things via email than face to face or paper.
V. interesting study done on posting questions to email lists/newsgroups. Who responds, how many respond to a query, how people know (if at all) people they're responding to.
Workflow Technology, Clarence A. Ellis
This chapter describes workflow technology and related definitions, gives some examples, and looks at problems and research areas.
Workflow systems have 2 components: 1)workflow modeling component 2)run-time system. Workflow modeling is the theoretical component and the run-time system is the actual computer system which moves the components around.
Mathmatical basis for this stuff is Information Control Net (ICN). 4-tuple G=(C,r,l,m).
Examples: IBM FlowMark, Action Workflow, Polymer.
Group editors, A. Prakash
group editors should:
DistEdit: a distributed toolkit for supporting multiple group editors.Knister, M.J. and Prakash, A.
DistEdit toolkit for building distributed editors. Authors modified both MicroEmacs and GNUEmacs to use DistEdit primitives. This was an early implementation supporting Master/Observer mode w/ observer having no editing capabilities. This version supported a "control-switch" mechanism (for relinquishing master/observer mode), "free-cursor" mode allowing observers to lock-step the cursor or not.
Uses broadcast facilities of ISIS
Very good diagram showing where primitives hook into broswers data and browsers output.
How people write together. Posner and Baecker
Lots of interviews about how people work in collaborative writing projects. Some of the hardest to interpret graphs ever!
Developed a taxonomy including categories of
How a group-editor changes the character of a design meeting as well as its outcome, Olson, Olson, Storrosten, and Carter
User study on how group editor changed design of group design project. MBAs as subjects, split into two groups. One group used ShrEdit, the other just the ususal tools (whiteboard, etc). Scored based on how completely output covered all aspects of task, ease of understaing ideas in document, quality of post office design.
No clear win on time spent on task (collab. not quicker)
ShrEdit groups judged higher quality
ShrEdit groups docs twice as long
Different amounts of time spent on subactivities. SchEdit spent much more time writing than discussing.
The action workflow approach to workflow management technology,Medina-Mora, Wiograd, Flores and Flores
Workflow based on request/satisfaction cycle. "Language action"
Three different domains of business processes:
Good diagrom (fig 1) showing loop from customer to performer with states of proposal (by C), agreement (by P), performance (by P), and satisfaction (by C). With some sort of goal/action being the target.
Good for noting breakdowns - when one stage is missing. Very similar to TCP/IP with info/ack cycle.
Example of staffing issues and interviewing candidates given. Architecture of system defined in detail.
Computer systems and the design of organizational interaction.Flores, F., Graves, M., Hartfield, B. and Winograd, T
Longer look at The Coordinator and integration with Lotus. Structured around request/promise conversational interaction. Can respond with "counteroffer". Faciliatates negotiation (I disagree. Too formal. )
Genres of organizational communication: A structurational approach to studying communication and mediaYates, J. & Orlikowski, W.
Looks at different genres of communication from a physical viewpoint. Most try to organize (taxonomize) communication by intangible things (why it originates, what type of communciation occurs by it, etc). This follows the evolution of communication from a physical viewpoint. From formal business letters, to memos, to email. Examines why we can draw those conclusions (common elements such as subject line, to, from) and how communication has changed.
Email as a habitat: An exploration of embedded personal information management Ducheneaut, N. & Bellotti V.
Study of email practices at several corporations. Finds that email is used for a variety of things beyond simple communication. Lots of interviews and surveys. Found lots of problems in folder organization given the different ways different works wanted to organize (and subsequently find) email. Few choices given for email clients.
Informal workplace communication: what is it like and how might we support it. Whittaker, frohlich and Daly-Jones
Looking at what people really do during their day. Tracked two people (communications mgr and commercial property valuation) at different companies to see what they did and how they leveraged informal workplace communication. Looked at basic properties (frequency, duration, pre-arranged, roles of documents, where occured) and structural properites (how opened/closed, ways people introduced and agree about context)
3% formal goodbyes
visual cues 21%
11% formal openings
used visual cues 32%
75% of time part. assumed prior context
only 15% in public areas
Frequency (of communication partners) had little affect on structure (use of context).
The Adoption and Use of "Babble": A Field Study of Chat in the Workplace Bradner, E., Kellogg, W., Erickson, T.
Looks at deployment of Babble which is a chat client with IM features. Deployed to many different labs. Longitudinal study which looks at why adoption did or did not occur.
Client allowed users to waylay, unobtrusive broadcast, permanent record so used to "stay in loop".
For different groups, Babble enabled some things they didn't want. Didn't want to be waylaid by boss for fear of more work. Cliquish behavior.
Social, Individual and Technological Issues for Groupware Calendar Systems, Leysia Palen
Notes that most groupware eval and design approached from technologically-, individually- or socially-centered focus. Presents an in-depth look at Sun's "Calendar Manager" which is widely used at Sun and what made it succeed in spite of huge company growth.
Single user (individual) demands: diversity in form and function, what functions calendars used for, reconciling design affordances and needs.
Interpersonal (between user and group) needs: temporality artifacts (playing with time slots), peer judgment and inference, interpersonal boundary management/privacy (dr. appt on public calendar), meeting arranging and scheduling around meetings.
Socio-technical (group) needs from technology: development environment, impacts of early design choices, social impacts on evolving design, deployment/acceptance/niche-creation.
Worth looking at Orlikowski's "Duality of Technology" theory - how people use technology and adapt it. Organization Science 3(3), 398–427.
Important point that default settings cannot be overlooked in deployment.
Media spaces: Environments for informal multimedia interaction. Mackay, W.E.
This paper uses the term "Media Spaces" which goes beyond just video/audio links to facilitate cscw at a distance. Defines "informal interaction" as a key goal. Analyzes RAVE, the EuroPARC media space setup. "Nodes" of video/audio at difference people's offices, common areas, meeting rooms, etc. Interface allows vphone (direct connection with explicit permission required), office share (long term open video and/or audio connection w/ explicit permission), glance (look at one person), sweep (look at predefined list of people), and background (like office share but w/ public spaces).
Also work on audio cues for letting people know when others were obtaining their status via glance, sweep, etc.
Details a specific implementation of a media space between Britian and the Netherlands called WAVE. Identified three distinct uses for the system:
Also points out key ethical/privacy issues which are highly organization dependent. In general, users want
Re-place-ing space. Harrison & Dourish
This paper makes the distinction between "space" and "place". They define space as the physical area and place as what happen in that area. Useful example is a church which is used for worship, community meetings, and an AA group. The physical space is the same, but the meaning is different to the different groups.
They then apply this definition to the concept of space in collaborative systems.
Features of space we can leverage in collaborative systems are:
They look at place in media spaces. They determine that "placeness" is developed and maintained by the ways people use the system. It can't be designed. But it can be supported. They note that when people could not play with a system or configure it, they coudln't make it theirs so they gave up on it, essentially treating it like "space" rather than "place".
They also look at 3 different complex forms:
Beyond being there. Hollan & Stornetta
This paper addresses the standard audio/video connection as a way of "being there" and looks beyond that. They note that the "ideal" is generally regarded as face-to-face communication and that most collaborative systems try to reach that. However, they point out that f2f communication could be improved and we need to throw out preconceived notions about what goals systems shoudl strive for. They note 4 systems in development which are worthy of exploration:
Casablanca: Designing Social Communication Devices for the Home, Hindus, et al.
Looks at ubicomp, media space applications for the home. Started with CommuteBoard. Expanded into RoomLink, InTouch, Presence Light. Focus groups. Revised into ScanBoard and Intentional Presence Lamp.
Distance Matters, Gary Olson and Judy Olson
This paper argues (by looking back at the last 10 years of groupware) that distance still does and always will matter. Based on past work, the stress 4 key findings:
They move on to detail coop. work in the future and what pure technology can and cannot overcome. They believe that technology will enable more rapid feedback, mulitple channel of communication, more nuanced information, and more customization for users. However they list a bunch of things that technology cannot overcome:
Useful list (can be taxonomy applied to different media) from Clark and Brennan (1991) of cues different media can provide:
Groupware in the wild: lessons learned from a year of virtual collocation, Olson & Teasley
Planning, implentation, and use by real corp. of suite of groupware tools.
Need to look at work as a whole rather than just one application for one task.
Colocated team took over more and more of project as it went on. Others grew loosely coupled.
Coupling designated by how immediately a response is needed and how muhc interaction for classification or persuasion.
Virtual environments at work: ongoing use of muds in the workplace, Churchill & Bly
Investigated use of muds outside of usual gaming/children context. Theorized that muds may work well because of easily understood spatial metaphor. Based on interviews randomly selected from larger group.
Integration of shared workspace and interpersonal space for remote collaboration, Ishii
Details several projects for a rich sharing of workspaces. Includes not just computers, but drawings/handnotes. Unique system of overlays. Investigates importance of eye gaze and the nuances humans get from that. TeamWorkstation (overlay). Clearboard (shared workspace with video projections of people)
Tivoli: An Electronic Whiteboard for Informal Workgroup Meetings, Pedersen, McCall, Moran and Halasz
Beyond the chalkboard. Stefik et al.
Colab (suite of tools) development at PARC. Term WYSIWIS (what you see is what I see). Busy signal for documents already in use.
Boardnoter - whiteboard (chalkboard)
Cognoter - preparing presentations collectively - supports brainstorming, organizing, and evaluating
Argnoter - pro/con software for proposals
Architecture for system discussed
Footprints: History-Rich Tools for Information Foraging,, Wexelblat and Maes
Set of tools for mainting history of a digital object. Specifically looking at web, but could be applied to general file systems as well. Properties of interactio history systems:
Beyond bowling together: Sociotechnical capital. Paul Resnick
Idea of sociotechnical capital referring to "productive combinations of social relations and information and communication technology." Two approaches: reinvigorate orgs and activities which have been sources in the past or invent new forms of togetherness.
What makes up social capital:
both residual of past actions and enabler of future interactions
How info. and communication technology affect social capital:
Groupware Toolkits for Synchronous Work, Saul Greenberg and Mark Roseman
4 central pieces:
Unpacking privacy for a networked world, Palen, L. & Dourish, P.
When Collaboration Doesn't Work. Guzdial, M., Ludovice, P., Realff, M., Morley, T., and Carroll, K.
Last modified 29 March 2005 at 4:05 pm by Valerie Henderson